In response to Neil's comments, the survey was posted to the main FISH
list and was therefore not intended to be aimed at MSc students! It is
aimed at finding out what people want to do with the toolkit and to get
a broad overview of the types of problems/issues experienced by those
wishing to exchange historic-environment information within the cultural
heritage sector.

With regards to Tyler's document, this was posted to FISH Technical, a
list where we would expect to find a higher number of people with an
MSc. The HEEP protocol is a technical document aimed at implementers. It
is written in appropriate language for this target audience. Of course
there will be a need to write supporting documentation for
non-specialists, but this has to be a follow-up step. WE have to create
the product before it can be marketed and promoted.

To answer your specific questions, however....

1. The HEEP protocol does not have an interface. Applications using the
HEEP protocol will have their own interfaces but this is an
implementation issue.

2. Mapping of fields will need to be done by implementers. Remember, we
are paying for the creation of a toolkit - we cannot also pay for the
workforce! In reality, I would hope that the exeGesIS community would
see is as beneficial to do commission exeGesIS to do mappings from HBSMR
on behalf of the whole HBSMR user community. Other vendors should also
be encouraged to undertake mappings from their software. Those SMR's
with in-house systems will need to work with their IT departments,
although as part of the promotion and dissemination of the FISH Toolkit
I hope that there will opportunities fro workshops. The FISH Technical
list will always be there to help and advise.

Hope this clarifies some of the issues you raise. Thanks for your
interest in the project.

Best wishes,

Matthew

Dr Matthew Stiff
Data Services Manager
National Monuments Record Centre
Kemble Drive
Swindon
SN2 2GZ
 
(t): 01793 414727
(f): 01793 414770
(m): 07939 151510
(e): [log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Campling [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 24 May 2004 12:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [FISH] Toolkit
>
> Dear Tookitters,
>
> I have received the following somewhat contradictory bits of
> information in assorted e-mails in the last few days.
>
> "Designing a complex piece of software such as this toolkit is no
> different. User requirements need to be fully scoped out before a
> single
> line of code is written."
>
> "the questionnaire required no greater intellectual rigour than I can
> muster on a Friday afternoon and was not the technical quagmire I
> feared"
>
> "I will be incorporating your comments and requests for clarification
> in the next version of the document. We're looking for all comments,
> but here's an overview:
> - Comments on potential implementation
> - Comments on technical efficacy"
>
> It seems as if Tyler's document will offer the opportunity for users
to
> comment more effectively on the tookit. However, my staff who are
both
> doing MSc's in IT in Archaeology and who have both filled in the
survey
> have commented that survey was too general to effectively scope the
> tookit work, while the HEEP protocol sent out by Tyler Bell is as yet
> too complicated to understand clearly how it's going to work. For
> example, what will be the interface, and how will mapping of fields in
> different databases be undertaken. The HEEP protocol needs more plain
> English to make it more understandable to lay archaeologists and
museum
> people. If you want the thing to work, it's operations have got to be
> understandable to the operators, and pitched at the right level of
> detail.
>
> And by the way, I still can't access the survey form because the
> Jiscmail "Command Confirmation Request" expired before I realised what
> the thing was - there needs to be more plain English in Jiscmail
> messages too.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
>
> WARNING
>
> This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
> confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
> named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be
aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is
> prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the
> view of the Council.
>
> North Yorkshire County Council.